9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Locus standi of the petitioner. 2. Requirement of previous sanction from the Central Government for construction on Class-A(1) land. 3. Environmental and ecological impact of the proposed construction. 4. Availability of alternative sites for the proposed construction. Summary: Locus Standi of the Petitioner: The petitioner, a citizen of Allahabad, filed a writ petition u/s 226 of the Constitution of India, raising concerns about the ecological and environmental impact of the construction of residential buildings on "Polo Ground." The respondents argued that the petitioner had no locus standi, as he neither represented the public nor had a direct interest in the land. The court, however, held that the petitioner had a sufficient interest in the proceedings as he acted bonafide and raised issues of public importance, including the right to a healthy environment under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court emphasized that Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is meant to ensure observance of constitutional and legal provisions for the benefit of the community and disadvantaged groups. Requirement of Previous Sanction: The court examined the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937, particularly Rules 3, 5, 7, 10, 13, and 14, which mandate that no addition or alteration in the General Land Register or construction on Class-A land can be made without the previous sanction of the Central Government. The court found that the military authorities had not obtained the necessary prior sanction from the Central Government for the proposed construction on the Polo Ground. The court rejected the respondents' argument that no sanction was required as the land use was being changed within the same category of Class-A(1) land. The court held that the construction of duplex units did not fall within the definition of "bungalow" and required prior approval. Environmental and Ecological Impact: The court emphasized the importance of maintaining open spaces for ecological balance and public health. It invoked the Public Trust Doctrine, which mandates the government to protect natural resources like air, water, and open spaces for public use. The court cited various Supreme Court judgments underscoring the need to preserve open spaces for recreation and environmental protection. The court noted that the Polo Ground had historical significance and had been used for various public purposes for over a century. The court held that the proposed construction would adversely affect the environment and deprive the citizens of Allahabad of their right to a healthy environment. Availability of Alternative Sites: The court observed that the military authorities had other large tracts of open land in the cantonment area that could be used for the proposed construction. The court noted that the respondents had not demonstrated that the Polo Ground was the only available site for the project. The court held that the military authorities should consider alternative sites to avoid compromising the environmental and historical value of the Polo Ground. Conclusion: The court issued a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from making any construction on the Polo Ground and directed them to maintain it as an open piece of land. The court also directed the respondents to restore the land to its original shape within three months. The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were awarded.
|
